Epic's "Samaritan" UE3 Demo Required 2.5 terraFLOPS

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last week Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney told DICE 2012 attendees that the tech demo of Unreal Engine 3 released last year, called "Samaritan," required 2.5 terraFLOPS to run at a 1920 x 1080 resolution, 30 frames per second and with 48 operations per pixel (that rig was a monster in size too).
Click to expand...

To that I'll say they'll lower and gimp the engine as much as is required to get it to run on whatever platform will sell their games. Then they take that gimped and reduced game and port it to PC, and as a cost saving measure they'll just reuse all the resources designed for the gimped engine.

If it takes a monster PC to run that engine, and their announcing that they have it running on "next generation consoles" then they've already gimped the ever living sh!t out of it.
 
"By comparison, Microsoft's Xbox 360 console is only capable of .25 terraFLOPS, meaning Microsoft will need to generate a new console at least ten times more powerful in order to run the UE3 demo smoothly."

Not looking up for the HD6670...
 
I would think that it would take less resources to achieve Samaritan visuals in UE4 vs. UE3 as the new engine should be built from the ground up for that kind of quality.
 
[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]To that I'll say they'll lower and gimp the engine as much as is required to get it to run on whatever platform will sell their games. Then they take that gimped and reduced game and port it to PC, and as a cost saving measure they'll just reuse all the resources designed for the gimped engine.If it takes a monster PC to run that engine, and their announcing that they have it running on "next generation consoles" then they've already gimped the ever living sh!t out of it.[/citation]
Why would they gimp the engine? It's not the engine itself that requires a monster PC, it's the product.
 



Short Answer: Read the Article, its in the title.



Long Answer:

The developer of the engine stated that it would need 2.5TFlops to properly run it's engine at 1920x1080 @30 FPS. They demoed this engine already and show cased what it could do and it required a powerful gaming PC with high end components to run. Consoles do not have high end components, their the equivalent of netbooks with a large custom GPU bolted in. Thus the engine as designed will not operate on the next generation of consoles that are near the end of their development cycles and are going to be showcased in the next year or so. The develop said it already had the engine working on these next generation consoles.


Putting the above together you can conclude that whatever the developers have running on those next generation consoles, it's not what they had running on that monster gaming PC they showcased. Developers have a long and venerated tradition of scaling things down and gimping game engines for them to work on consoles, and then later releasing those console ports to PC without redoing them. There is a large pushback from PC gamers right now against what they feel is dumbing down of games to make them work on HW thrifty consoles. Just take a long look at Skyrim as a perfect example. Awesome game, but they had to develop a separate HD graphics pack many months after release for the PC, meaning whatever the did PC originally was the same as what the 360 and PS3 got.
 
if i want to see unreal engine 4 handle the Samaritan demo, and tell us the processing power needed.
if it required more, the engine is crap, if it requires less, the engine is at least headed in the right direction.

all i want to see out of the next consoles is tessellation, it will be the single biggest jump in quality we could hope for. devs already use high resolution models, if consoles use tessellation, we can expect it to trickle to the pc, we already get high resolution textures the models are the last things we need.

and also, we should work on passive ways to improve quality, like tessellation, not new ways to make a game cost more.

do we really need a game to look better than modern warfare 3? (i dont play it but i can respect the engine)
imagine the game with tessellation applied to it.
now add in some newer lighting effects.
anywhere there is water, a physics loop of water to make it look real, instead of a flat surface with textures applied to it.
now give the game the stereo sound of blacklight retribution (hands down the best sound i have heard in a game in years, i have hd555 headphones, and i can tell what direction the sound is comeing from and how far away it is... its simply amazing.)
increase the texture size a bit, and there you go... everything i said is more or less a passive system that would increase the quality without increasing the cost to develop.

games already cost to much to make, if they use the increased quality in graphics to justify costing even more...
 
Why won't console gaming just die already?

Money aside, I have never been able to understand why anyone would ever want to play on a console.
- As mentioned before, graphics are downgraded and everything is stripped down so it can run on a console
- As many games are "ported" to PC, they leave everything the same and slap a PC sticker on the box, thus greatly ignoring the potential of the powerful PC platform.
- Gamepad, oh how much I loathe your existence. I didn't get Battlefield 3, one of the most anticipated FPS games ever, to be degenerated to gaming-20-years-ago. "Repeatedly press button to climb", "Press button to win". AAARGH...!

Does not compute. Seriosly. Let the consoles die already...!
 
I also hope that MS is just bluffing so that Sony may go with lower specs based on false expectations of its chief competition.

I think they are. I think MS will indeed make the console more powerful than what they have so far "leaked"...

 
damn.. i can't even imagine what shooters would be like to play on "perfect" visual quality!
 
What many people miss, is that, by 2022.

Coupled with 100 inch glasses free 3d and exremly high resolution and ..........Unreal Engine 5, Cryengine 5, Id tech Engine 7 and Frostbite 3........Real life like graphics are a near guarantee, give or take 3 years


Thats if we dont blow each other up first 😛
 
[citation][nom]Sgtmurder[/nom]Why won't console gaming just die already?Money aside, I have never been able to understand why anyone would ever want to play on a console.- As mentioned before, graphics are downgraded and everything is stripped down so it can run on a console- As many games are "ported" to PC, they leave everything the same and slap a PC sticker on the box, thus greatly ignoring the potential of the powerful PC platform.- Gamepad, oh how much I loathe your existence. I didn't get Battlefield 3, one of the most anticipated FPS games ever, to be degenerated to gaming-20-years-ago. "Repeatedly press button to climb", "Press button to win". AAARGH...!Does not compute. Seriosly. Let the consoles die already...![/citation]

I prefer gaming on a console because there is less cheating, you know every one is running similar hardware & its much cheaper than upgrading your graphics card/CPU every two seconds.
PC gaming should just die a death.
 
[citation][nom]psupanova[/nom]I prefer gaming on a console because there is less cheating, you know every one is running similar hardware & its much cheaper than upgrading your graphics card/CPU every two seconds.PC gaming should just die a death.[/citation]

Funny, because I'd say PC gaming was much cheaper and much more flexible to the demands of the consumer.

Why not have everyone in an fps wander round in a wheelchair if games are made to be used on joypads. Joypads are platform/sports games only to be honest.

Despite what you read in tom's forums, not everyone buys a new gfx card every year. A good one will do for 3 years, in which you can sell it on and use the proceeds for a better one. They also are not bound to certain peripherals or overpriced games.

I imagine xbox games cost on average £10 more per title than on a PC, not to mention 2x cost peripherals and the xbox live subscription. End result, you could've had a better quality experience, but were suckered in, and consoles continue to milk you.

Frankly speaking, given the quality of titles on consoles now is so appalling compared to the technology available, new games should retail at £30 max.

(one thing lacking on PC's however, is gran turismo or a driving game as good as, and I've even considered buying a ps3 just for that)
 
30 frames per second? What in the hell would a "gamer" be happy about it? Unless the player is 50 year-old, it would mean choppy gameplays and large input latency!
Besides, with the HD6670 in the "next gen" console, it certainly means games with the same 720p graphics!
 
i wanna see frostbite 3 graphics when u mention this you will have my full undivided attention... till then i mainly with just remember that they said its gonna require 5000 teraflop or something computer for real life graphics 😛 got my attention there for a second... frostbite 10....
 
[citation][nom]Sgtmurder[/nom]Why won't console gaming just die already?Money aside, I have never been able to understand why anyone would ever want to play on a console.- As mentioned before, graphics are downgraded and everything is stripped down so it can run on a console- As many games are "ported" to PC, they leave everything the same and slap a PC sticker on the box, thus greatly ignoring the potential of the powerful PC platform.- Gamepad, oh how much I loathe your existence. I didn't get Battlefield 3, one of the most anticipated FPS games ever, to be degenerated to gaming-20-years-ago. "Repeatedly press button to climb", "Press button to win". AAARGH...!Does not compute. Seriosly. Let the consoles die already...![/citation]

some games lend themselves FAR better to a game pad than to a mouse and keyboard, shocking huh... and how was battle field 3 control dumbed down for the pc? i didnt play multiplayer all that much in it as its my little brothers game, but i didn't notice anything wrong.

and here is one more thing, and the one aspect of a console i love.

you never have to worry if your system can play it. on the pc, even though my computer is more than capable of playing anything i throw at it, i still have to worry if my computer will play it without a problem, i also have to worry about space... i would have gotten a bigger hdd, but so not paying for one now. on a console, i pop a disc in, and it works... some ps3 games need an install, but that's it. i wish computer games could run off a dvd, or a slow media... sure load times may suffer, but if it saves space i'm willing to take that hit.

consoles have their appeal. if they had a mouse and keyboard native support for the games that really need it, i would game on them exclusively, because i don't care much about graphics.
 
A game engine is perfectly capable of running on any hardware you adapt it to, its the quality of the output of the graphics rendering that determines the hardware requirments and the visual quality it is capable of creating.

Now they said it took 2.5Tflops of processing to create the visual quality of the "samaritan" tech demo at 1920x1080 at 30fps, the tech demo ran at 60fps using 3 gtx 580 in tri sli which would equate to around 5Tflops for that level of visual detail at 1920x1080.

Now while on the pc side it would be easy to create the visual detail of the demo, using a high end card such at a 7970 with its 3.79Tflops which could easily run the demo at over 30FPS, now on the next generation of consoles the engine will run but at the usual stunted graphical quality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom